Nick_76What few days and what skirmishes? Sens, please look up into the history of the Indo-Pak wars to understand the intensity of fighting. These wont be brief “I slap, you slap” fights, but serious offensives. The IAF has asked the IA for a couple of weeks time for counter air, after which it can support the IA fully. For their part, the PAF has – if past conflicts are any reckoner, decided that their own survival is paramount and will conserve assets by not seeking a fight, until the odds favour them substantively. That would have worked earlier, but with IFR, with long ranged assets like the MKI, the aircraft can remain in the air for a long time, payloads have increased substantially giving the element of momentum back to the attacker to a substantial degree – and the IAF is acquiring systems which are meant to break holes into the ADGES. There are obviously no plans to take the entire PAF network apart, in that you are correct, there is limited time- but there is the intent to blow holes into radar coverage for strike packages to roll out of. Consider the following:
Not to mention the MMRCA contest, the new radars and what not.
The aim & intent is clear, and I seriously doubt a light fighter force of a couple of F-16s /JF-17 types can deter a serious IAF attack in any manner. That is what I was getting at.
If the IAF were to acquire more MiG-21 derivatives while the PLAAF bulked up on Flankers, my reaction would have been the same. Luckily, they read the tea leaves in time and went for the MKI program.
Net, the PAF will be no pushover, but I severely doubt whether they will be able to blunt any IA offensive or contribute to the Pak war effort. For them, their own survival will be the crux, which is what I meant by saying that this “deterrence” stuff wont work vs the IAF. True deterrence is when the IA halts/ does not attack because of what the PAF brings to the table. Not that the PAF survives, and hence that itself is a deterrent.
Nick_76Correct judgment. Pakistan can try to keep a deterrence in AD, which has to be supported by a flexible CGI-AWACs network.
The problem is that w/o the GBADS and AWACs, a light-medium fighter force isnt going to cut it against the IAF. The IAF is preparing to do exactly that, from plans for AWACS busting to taking out radars. Just as a checkup, even the most recent LCH being developed by HAL for the IAF & IA – one of the payloads planned? ARMs.
Nick_76First, this is a first for me that JF-17’s purchase will be curtailed. Considering PAF’s initial committment for 150 unit followed by recent talk from high level officials of taking that to 250 units, I have absolutely no idea as to what your reasons are.
Recent talk is just that forecasting for public consumption. Everyone does that. They will have to be open minded about actual purchases given the way the IAF is bulking up. If the PAF even aims to have a moderate “defend itself” ability, it will have to look beyond the JF-17. It simply isnt going to be competitive enough against a revamped IAF which would have transitioned to a predominantly heavy force.
Having said this, one thing PAF learnt from past experiences (and they have said so again and again) is to have multiple options and a very flexible strategy. So all is open for discussion and changeable.
So there you introduce your caveat- which was exactly my point. From the IAF’s POV, the PAF only relying on JF-17s is good news. But I doubt PAF will play so easily into the IAFs hands. Lets see.
By 2015, all F-16s will be BVRAAM capable, and JF-17 (to be BVRAAM capable from the start) has already started its production.
The point is that how many F-16s will there be by 2015? You are talking of 230 MKIs in the IAF by then and the squadron raisings will have been done.
JF-17 hasnt even done its IOC yet iirc, so it will take at least 2-3 years before FOC, and before series production is started. Not to mention ramp up issues if Pak insists on assembling/integrating them locally.
As for production rate, of course it will be low to start with, but that will pick up over the coming years. Their Grifo M3 equipped mirages are already BVRAAM capable, and by 2015 you can expect most of PAF’s fleet to be BVRAAM capable.
BVRAAM “capable” is not equal to BVRAAM carriage. Technically speaking the Jaguar IMs in IAF service are “BVRAAM capable”- but do they carry the same?
And I dont what you are speaking of when you say by 2015, most of PAFs fleet will be BVRAAM capable- the F-7s will remain w/o BVR, a handful of F-16s- 3/4 squadrons and a few of JF-17s will have BVR, but the rest? Also, the choice of Chinese radar was because, in part, the Chinese didnt want to let away their IP by integrating the SD-10 w/ the Grifo-2000/etc radars planned originally for the JF-17. That rules out the SD-10 for the ROSE -1 Mirages, which by 2015, will definitely be hitting the end of their lifetimes, even with refurbishment. So the only choice left is the R-Darter, which too iirc is being phased out. And besides which, it makes little sense to put a BVR missile, a third type, on a plane destined for decomissioning within the decade. In the IAFs case, all the Bison weaponry can still be used on the MKI, Upg MiG-27 and LCA fleet.
I think PAF was and will remain a defensive force, and is not in a race to catch up with India.:) This is something a lot of posters on these forums do not realise, or forget when talking about the two air forces. And I dont think either country is in a rush to start a war anytime soon or in distant duture, but in the dreams of a few fanatics on both sides.
The issue is and was of “defensive deterrence”- the PAF quite simply doesnt have the ability to deter the IAF today. The rapid decline in IAF squadron strength could have given PAF its breakthrough after a long decade, but it does seem that the PAF hasnt planned for it. With the MRCA, MKI & LCA inductions the IAF would have regained the edge. Which begs the question, what exactly is the PAF for? If it cant defend the PA against Enemy Air, and fights to survive, its impact on the overall war is limited.
As for the rumour of BVRAAM on Mirages, well it will remain exactly that for a while yet.
In other words, no evidence or certainty of the Mirages being BVR capable or equipped.
Back in late 90s, PAF decided to up the requirements for FC-1, i.e. active BVR mainly cos Sparrows on F-16s did not perform as expected in their exercises.:)
Please research the topic. PAF never received Sparrows for their F-16s, let alone exercise with them. As late as 1999, IAF MiG-29s locked onto F-16s across the LOC, but werent targeted in turn & the F-16s retreated. No ambiguity there either.
Nick_76Indradhanush – MKI vs EF:
No wonder both sides went away saying they could “handle it”. The MKI guys remained confident that if they had brought TVC into the picture..
The EF guys were happy they could handle the basic Flanker airframe.
Nick_76Is Sudarshan a Paveway-like LGB or a dual-mode munition like SAL+GPS? Are there any info on this project? I couldn’t find any after a brief googling.
Paveway like LGB designed by DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Establishment, and to be manufactured by BDL.
Nick_76Of course PGs will remain in service for quite a while. Initially they were expected to remain in service till 2015, but Im sure they will stay beyond then. But once again, PAF that concience choice.
Yes, which is what I also said. PAFs backbone will remain the F-7 fleet for the next decade at the very minimum. PAF simply doesnt have the funding to overnight replace its spine with umpteen JF-17s, plus induction and squadron raisings take time. Especially considering that the PAF plans to assemble these aircraft locally, which is in itself a first for Pak. Also, I am reasonably sure that the JF-17 purchase might be curtailed to 6-8 squadrons, and the rest will be J-10s. Thats the only way the PAF will at least have some parity with a portion of the IAF fleet. The numbers of F-16s planned are simply too low.
Once BVRAAM equipped F-16s and JF-17 are in service, we will know what sort of experience PAF have had with BVRAAM on its mirages.:-)
I dont know why this rumour of “BVRAAM” on Mirages persists when they dont have the same, but it would be very prudent of the PAF to give it a try. The Mica or even the R Darter could be candidates for the 2 Mirage squadrons. This would give the PAF interim BVR capability as its squadrons slowly build up with new/MLU F-16s and JF-17s. Even otherwise, the PAF has a lot of catching up to do. It will take at least a decade for the PAF to fully operationalize its AEWC, create a new doctrine and fully get ops on new BVR equipped a/c – these are standard timelines for any professional AF. But the IAF may have moved even further ahead by that time. The IAF has had BVR AAMs for nearly 2 decades now, moreorless and has taken part in several BVR exercises; this year, MKIs are heading to Red Flag. Not to mention that all said and done, PAF acquisitions are qualitatively inferior to IAF ones, which is pretty much a first. In the past, at least a portion of the PAF fleet would be equal to the leading edge of the IAF fleet in several criteria, and India wouldnt spend enough to make its AF truly dominant. Now that paradigm no longer holds true.
Nick_76There is not linear relationship for power/coolling/space. Flanker nose 20% bigger than Fulcrum at most but will carry 100% more T/R modules.
This thing is getting smaller very fast. Earlier APG-63V2 weighs 500lb antenna which is reduced to 250lbs in V3 and it is going even further down.
MIG-35 is 300lbs that they want to bring into 220lbs
http://www.forecastinternational.com/notable/isr1.pdf
You are still delusional in the extreme if you think 20,000 Tx/Rx modules will fit in the nose of a Tu-160. All your claims apart, as Sens would say.
Nick_76The Indian air force may or may not believe that there is a better processor available from a Western supplier but the indigenously developed Indian product will always be the first choice, wouldn’t it?
Not necessarily – any local Indian item developed is evaluated vs its international peers for an “open IAF requirement”, only when it meets relevant benchmarks, its inducted, otherwise its not.
It can sometimes lead to never ending scope creep as well, as each local item is constantly compared against a best in class system developed by a much more experienced vendor and then its specs are redrawn and its sent back for further development.
Nick_76The Green-Pine look-alike is the JY-11 (See post below)! One in the image looks more like the LSS-1, YLC-18…
YLC-18:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Ground/RADARS/YLC-18/YLC-18-i.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Ground/RADARS/YLC-18/VLC-18-1.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Ground/RADARS/YLC-18/VLC-18-2.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Ground/RADARS/YLC-18/VLC-18-3.jpg:confused::confused::confused:
A clarification would really nice!
The GreenPine is an AESA – the above radars are all phased arrays (even if in elevation). A significant difference, and I can assure you that GP performance level is only achievable for its size via an AESA. There is a reason why it is the backbone of a Missile Defence system.
Nick_76Also the THAAD Radar has 25,344 T-R modules and the SBX with “well over” 30,000 modules 😉
Plus, a simple gander at the cooling and power requirements shows how ridiculous the idea of a 20K AESA setup on the Tu series is.
Nick_76It was back in 1993 or so when PAF signed the contract for Grifo-7, and at the time they were still focused on embargoed F-16s not considering BVR on F-7. Later, Grifo M on their Mirages gave them the option and still later they aquired the precious BVR capability, albeit limited. PG was only an interim solution, and old F-7s are to be replaced by JF-17. Even though there are options available to equip F-7 with BVRAAM, they have made a choice not to do so…and this is possibly the only WVR fighter (of old types?) that would remain in service with PAF beyond 2015. One thing which I personally think they should have done was to make PG compatible with a missile cueing system…but I guess PAF is once again thinking about F-16/J-10/JF-17 all of which will be equipped with HMD.
I seriously doubt that the PAF is going to replace all its F-7s and Mirage 3’s asap, the JF-17 production is unlikely to rise beyond a sq a year – the PGs shall also remain for quite some time. And frankly, the PAF would have neutralised a very important IAF advantage via equipping select squadrons w/BVR, especially active BVR. Only issue is that the nosecone of the F-7 is simply too compact for the practical application of the same.
And BTW, there is no confirmation of the PAF having BVR A2A weaponry on the Mirages. They have been depicted as launch carriers of Kentron A2G Systems such as the MUPSOW iirc and recently, the new ALCM. But no A2A missiles.
By the same logic, I cant imagine why they wouldn’t have done well against any other fighters besides Mig-27 and Jags.
Because the Mirage 2000’s and MiG-29s are getting upgraded, and the MKI overwhelmed the F-16 Block 52 (which in turn was superior to the Bison) @ KKD in RSAF vs IAF. Non Upgraded Mirage 2000’s- as I said- were at a disadvantage, radar wise, against the Bison. The Upgraded Mirages will receive ARH missiles & the RDY-2 plus new ICMS EW suite, the MiG-29s will get the Zhuk ME, the new NIPP OLS, plus active ECM plus the RVV-AE. All of these are superior to most of the Bisons avionics by far. Add the datalink capability, plus the airframe performance advantages of the Mirage and MiG-29, and the Bison comes out second best.
This is for the Bison. With RAM, with more expensive and comprehensive avionics than the F-7. So the above would apply to the F-7 as well @ the very least. If I were in PAF acquisitions – I’d rather upgrade the GrifoM3 equipped ROSE 1 Mirages with a third party A2A BVR weapon. They would be a much more flexible BVR A2A asset.
Nick_76It is simply a matter of size…..I mean if we can say ‘xyz’ RADAR with ‘abc’ gizmos can be fitted into the J-7G/G2 same holds true to the MiG-21 BisON. We’ve already seen the MiG-21 BisON with 4 RVV-AE. We know what is in the BisON package. Can start speculating. I heard MiG-21 BisON also has some RAM treatment. More advanced Kopyo variants (Kopyo-F??), smaller Zhuk-AE etc, etc, etc……
Exactly that. It is an issue of size. Which is why radars in J-7s have limited scan angles. +/- 30 is not good enough especially when range is limited, and SA is affected.
IIRC, even the parabolic RADAR for the J-7C/D had a max range of 70/80 km or so……
What you can fitted behind the J-7G/G2 and the MiG-21 BisON nose cones are well…….not the same…
.
Its all a question of basic trignometry. Just see the scan area of a 80 km search vs a large target vs a fighter sized one @ limited scan angles.
J-7G/G2 advantages are with its airframe and engine. MiG-21 BisON is a refurbished plane, and not a newly built one.
Bison is a rebuilt aircraft. And advantage is relative. The Bis components, including engine are mostly built in India. In the PAFs case, they will still have to get them from China.
Phazotron NIIR Kopyo Vs Grifo-7PG, KLJ-6E/6F. SY-80 :confused:
Kopyo
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_228.shtml
http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/mig21.htmThis what little Hui Tong has to say about the Grifo-7PG PD radar (search 55km, track 37km, single target track)
The key difference is in terms of scan angles and BVR guidance in terms of MCG. And there are just 2-3 Sq of PGs in PAF, rest are F-7/J-7. Those are equipped with +/- 20 radars.
Nick_76No, it makes perfect sense, and its also called good planning. The Bison might have made sense to the IAF in the 90s because the bulk of their main potential opponent AF does not have BVR, so having BVR, even a limited one, is a material advantage.
In your view perhaps…but I disagree. The Bison has done well against BVR capable assets as well, repeatedly.
But for the PAF and PLAAF its not the same equation. The PLAAF is faced with the ROCAF and potentially the USN, whose entire main fighter fleet has true BVR. So a limited BVR platform would be no better then a non-BVR platform, and that is why they have never pursued the idea of putting BVR on a J7 – the limitations of the airframe means that it is impossible to allow the plane to compete in the BVR field against true BVR fighters like M2K, F16s, IDF and F18s etc. This is especially true since the PLAAF have far more potent options like the J11, J10 and J9(JF17) that they could buy instead.
Kindly rearead what I wrote. Bisons in tac exercises tailored for the South Asian enviroment have done well against (on paper) much superior aircraft, airframe wise. No reason why the PG wouldnt have been able to do so as well in a specific role.
This is pretty much the same case with the PAF. When they bought the PGs, the IAF already had MKIs, Mig29s and M2K, with more MKIs, LCAs and more on the way. Against those, even a Bison would have no chance in BVR, so why bother with a Bison-like upgrade that actually changes nothing but costs you millions per plane that could be better spent buying more F16s, JF17s and maybe even J10s who would have a far better chance against the new gen IAF mainstay?
The Bison has done well against a non upgraded Mirage 2000, and Block 50 F-16s and F-15C’s. A BVR Capable F-7 would do well against the IAF MiG-27s and Jaguars.
The PGs were meant to be a stop-gap to keep the numbers from getting too unbalanced until the PAF can get their high-end jets in any number, but the PAF have been so impressed with the performance of the PGs that they ordered more, and thats saying something.
Beggars cant be choosers. The PAF has limited options and so they took more PGs, since more Mirage 3/5s werent available. Same for the IAF, they couldnt outright purchase Mirage 2000-V’s without a complicated process on account of the cost, so they went for the less cumbersome upgrade MiG-21 Bis process.
Nick_76Wiki says:
* F-7P. Newly-built Skybolt for the Pakistani Air Force (PAF). A total of 60 were built. Starting with this model, F-7s in the Pakistani service began to be upgraded with the Italian FIAR Grifo-Mk-II radar license assembled by the ISO – 9002 certified Kamra avionics, Electronics and Radar Factory of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC).
In comparison to the Grifo-7, the new radar only weighs an extra 1 kg (56 kg total), but the sector of scan was increased to ±20 degrees from the original ±10 degrees of Grifo-7. The newer radar also had improved ECM and look-down and shoot-down capability, and can track 4 targets simultaneously while engage one of four target tracked.
Hardly BVR material. Scan angles in particular are pathetic. And its not even a PESA to maintain TWS on a hard manouevering fighter.
Nick_76Another oldie
Flight International
April 16, 2002Pg. 17
AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT PAKISTAN ORDERS MORE CHENGDU FIGHTERS
Pakistan air force has indicated a requirement for up to 25 more Chengdu F-7PG/FT-7PG fighters to bolster its fleet to 75 aircraft. Meanwhile, the protracted China/Pakistan Chengdu Super 7/FC-1 development programme appears to be finally moving ahead, with the metal for the first prototype having recently been cut.
China has completed delivery of 50 of the improved F-7s to Pakistan and is understood to be discussing a follow-on order for 25 single-seat F-7PGs and two-seat FT-7PGs. Pakistan is also expected to shortly sign a contract with Italy’s Galileo to equip the fighter, designated in China as the F-7MG, with the improved Fiar Grifo MG radar.
The F-7PGs have been delivered equipped for the radar but do not have it installed. The radar selection was delayed while the Pakistan air force evaluated BAE Systems Super Skyranger, an improved pulse-Doppler version of the F-7’s Skyranger 226 ranging radar. Italian officials say the Grifo MG was able to demonstrate better low-level capability than that of the Super Skyranger.
Installation of Grifo MG is likely to be performed by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex at Kamra, which has already fitted Grifo F and M variants of the multimode radar to older F-7Ps and Dassault Mirage IIIEA/DA fighters. Grifo MG has an enlarged 350mm (13.8in) diameter antenna and an expanded 30 elevation and azimuth capability.
Pakistan’s F-7PG have replaced its elderly Nanchang F-6s and provide an interim capability until the Super 7 can be fielded. With initial fabrication now under way, the first prototype is due to make its maiden flight by the end of the next year. A full-size mock-up of the fighter is expected to be at the Farnborough air show in July.
Note limited scan limits +/- 30 degrees in azimuth & elevation for the F-7MG – and this is “improved” over the Grifo for the F-7
And that the Grifo was originally chosen over the Super skyranger- itself nothing more than an upgraded ranging radar with some more limited modes.
And the PAF F-7s dont even have a MFD for A2A modes iirc, they use the HUD for that.
Definitely not BVR ready/ suitable platforms from the WCS and MMI point of view.
Sign In
